# 2012 US Presidential Election



## opaltiger (Sep 26, 2012)

Well, I think it's now officially close enough that I can make a thread. I follow US politics quite closely, and I'm sure there must be others who do as well!

So, what do you guys think about the race? Who do you support? Who do you think will win?

I'm a bit disappointed. Most boring election year ever? Maybe it's just that we were spoilt in 2008 with all the drama. Anyway, I'm struggling to remain cautiously optimistic, but "cautiously" is proving hard to hold on to. Two polls today have Obama up ten in Ohio and nine in Florida - that's on the high end of the spread, sure, but is there _any_ way Romney can close the gap in time? Ohio and Florida are both supposed to lean Republican, and there is very little he can do if he loses either, and literally nothing he can do if he loses both.

If you're curious about day-to-day happenings in the race, I recommend FiveThirtyEight, which publishes a daily forecast of the presidential and Senate races as well as more-or-less objective commentary and analysis (though it's fairly obvious the writer leans left), and Daily Kos, which has posts on all aspects of US politics as well as daily round-ups of news and polls.


----------



## sovram (Sep 26, 2012)

I actually think it's been pretty interesting recently, what with the streak of fuck-ups that Romney has been making.

Right now I'm basically torn between Stein and Obama. I really like Stein but also our political system makes me sad. So I might vote for Obama. Don't know.


----------



## Music Dragon (Sep 26, 2012)

I don't vote on principle. The system sucks. Why the hell are there only two parties that people actually vote for? I find it highly unlikely that either one of them accurately represents most people's opinions!

I also don't vote because I'm not a US citizen.


----------



## shy ♡ (Sep 26, 2012)

Music Dragon said:


> I don't vote on principle.
> 
> I also don't vote because I'm not a US citizen.


That is quite an important principle to hold. 

I agree re: two party voting, but there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it, honestly.


----------



## Superbird (Sep 26, 2012)

Funny thing is, the writers of the american constitution never really wanted there to be competing parties in the first place. At least, not to this scale.

Anyway, I'm not old enough to vote yet so my opinion doesn't matter all that much. However, I'm really not a fan of McCain.


----------



## Tailsy (Sep 26, 2012)

Ha ha ha, two party systems and MAJORITIES, Sarah cackles as she pretends that weird freak incident that was the Scottish parliamentary election 2011 didn't really happen

Funny stuff. But seriously I am so sick of the internet telling me to vote every five bleeding minutes. Does it look like I can vote in your stupid election >:C


----------



## shy ♡ (Sep 26, 2012)

Tailsy said:


> Funny stuff. But seriously I am so sick of the internet telling me to vote every five bleeding minutes. Does it look like I can vote in your stupid election >:C


I agree so much. I _can_ vote and it's annoying as fuck. God, I'm already voting ffs, stop telling me to vote. :|


----------



## Adriane (Sep 26, 2012)

I'll probably vote Stein to make myself feel better. While I know she (sadly) has no chance of winning, my state's a pretty guaranteed Romney state.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Sep 26, 2012)

Nooo, don't third party, that's what elected Bush! Don't take anything for granted. It's bad enough we have people like my hippy aunt who's not voting period.

Remember your IDs, people in relevant states!

Ah, I wish I could vote. (Only two more years to go!)


----------



## Adriane (Sep 26, 2012)

hopeandjoy said:


> Nooo, don't third party, that's what elected Bush! Don't take anything for granted. It's bad enough we have people like my hippy aunt who's not voting period.


I live in South Carolina. _Gingrich_ won the primary here.


----------



## Minish (Sep 26, 2012)

hopeandjoy said:


> Nooo, don't third party, that's what elected Bush! Don't take anything for granted. It's bad enough we have people like my hippy aunt who's not voting period.


It's really not fair to judge people for not voting when sometimes that feels pretty awful. And yeah... ~every vote counts~ doesn't actually feel like it applies that much sometimes.

Obama might generally be better than Romney, and it would super-cool to keep in a black president for a bit longer, but he still drops bombs on little brown children... some people just genuinely can't vote with that on their conscience, and wow just leave them to it.


----------



## Flora (Sep 26, 2012)

Chalumeau said:


> I live in South Carolina. _Gingrich_ won the primary here.


I guess SC really wants their moon colony

I'd like to vote (because the phrase President Romney scares me shitless) but I need to mail in my voter registration and I don't have stamps.

Though I'll see if they can just take my paperwork the next time the school has a "GOVOTEGOVOTEGOVOTE" event


----------



## ultraviolet (Sep 27, 2012)

Music Dragon said:


> I don't vote on principle. The system sucks. Why the hell are there only two parties that people actually vote for? I find it highly unlikely that either one of them accurately represents most people's opinions!


every time I come across this on the internet it's like 'what' and then I remember that voting isn't compulsory everywhere. I mean here it's 'vote or get a $50 fine' but most people who aren't interested just graffiti the ballot or something anyway.

still, isn't it worth voting just so the one you like the least has less of a chance to get in? I mean, sure both candidates are kinda icky but one of them's going to get in; would you rather it be someone you really, really don't like or someone who's not quite as bad? even if I didn't like obama, I'd still vote for him over mitt romney because that guy's a scary fucker. :C

idk I would probably just vote obama if I was american because it seems like independent parties don't really count for anything in the US. :B


----------



## sovram (Sep 27, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> idk I would probably just vote obama if I was american because it seems like independent parties don't really count for anything in the US. :B


there have been a couple of times where third parties did pretty fairly in the general election, I think. just not very often.

I think mostly the goal with Green is to generate a respectable amount of votes, then the party will get some media coverage (maybe), then people might think, "hey, maybe we shouldn't just decide between these two parties!"

not that I think it's very likely but yeah as Cirrus said I don't exactly feel justified voting for Obama


----------



## Eta Carinae (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.

I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


----------



## Adriane (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.
> 
> I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


Yes, because _clearly_ that's Obama's only redeeming quality. He's black. Yessir.


----------



## shy ♡ (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.
> 
> I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This is just like, really quick easy to find articles. And that video where he says 47% of america might as well die for all he cares. n_n


----------



## Autumn (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> but I want to see what he can do.


that's... not a great reason for voting someone imo


----------



## Minish (Sep 27, 2012)

Really big, massive, world-controlling change purely for the sake of it is preeeeetty dangerous...


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.
> 
> I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


His term hasn't been much of a success because the Republican Congress is devoted to making sure Obama doesn't get re-elected. Did you know they have blocked bill after bill designed to help the economy (for example)? That bill should have passed 58 - 40, but thanks to the abuse of the filibuster, 60 is the new 50.

Sure, blame Obama for some things. But to suggest that the lack of progress during his first term is wholly (or even mostly) his fault is ridiculous.


----------



## Ether's Bane (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.
> 
> I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


And so it begins...


----------



## Cerberus87 (Sep 27, 2012)

Diànlóng said:


> I'm not American, or of voting age, but in all honesty, I think I'd vote Romney please don't hate me if I had the choice.  No, I don't uphold many of the Republican views, but I want to see what he can do.  This is just my general opinion on the Obama presidency, but I think a fair few people voted for him so as to seem accepting and fair, because he would be the first black president, not because he was that much better than McCain.  Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is awesome as well, but I don't feel this term was that much of a success.
> 
> I think it's mainly because I'm pro-economics at this point, and I think a change is the best thing we can do right now, just in the hope that _something_ works.


I don't need to vote Romney to know he's utter s***.

I do think many of the people who voted for Obama wanted the novelty of having a black president, which in the end doesn't make much difference at all because Obama upholds the views of the Democrats, so the fact he's black is irrelevant. But the Democrats are way better, no contest. It's a shame there's no true left-wing party in the US, or else I'd vote for that if I was American.


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 27, 2012)

Watching the American elections is like having a contest between a blind and a one-eyed archer.

The one-eyed archer wins because he can actually manage to hit part of the target (thanks to having some eyesight) whereas the blind man's arrows are basically all over the place and dangerous enough to poke people's eyes out.

The one-eyed archer still doesn't really make everything a whole lot better, but since there's no such thing as a capable archer running for Master Archer, well, I guess we have to give the one-eyed the job and hope he hits another few semi-decent targets while we remove the blind man from the archery society and give him some braille to read.


----------



## -Chris- (Sep 28, 2012)

Does anyone seriously believe that Romney has any chance of winning?


----------



## Superbird (Sep 28, 2012)

Presumably most of the Republican party.


----------



## Datura (Sep 28, 2012)

sovram said:


> I actually think it's been pretty interesting recently, what with the streak of fuck-ups that Romney has been making.
> 
> Right now I'm basically torn between Stein and Obama. I really like Stein but also our political system makes me sad. So I might vote for Obama. Don't know.


You're in Texas! It doesn't matter who you vote for, so you might as well give it to Dr. Stein.


----------



## Phantom (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm not even following the election this year. I was watching Colbert the other day, saw that Romney suggested that windows should open on jet planes. 

My forehead is still red.

I really don't care who gets in... I guess Obama's the lesser of two evils at this point. Isn't that how it always is? You vote for the one you hate less? Stein sounds ok, but I doubt she's going to win, so it's a wasted vote. I'll vote Saxon just to say I did.


----------



## Dar (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm too young to vote. HUZZAH

We're screwed either way. Same as every year.


----------



## Spoon (Sep 29, 2012)

It's funny how much changes in four years. 

 As for the election, I'll probably go with a third party candidate, because I really don't want to vote for choice A or choice B.


----------



## Amala (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm too young to vote, but if i could I'd vote for Obama. It just makes more sense.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm in a swing state, so even though I'd love to vote for Jill Stein, I'd kick myself if Romney won my state.


----------



## Tailsy (Sep 29, 2012)

God, your electoral system is _so awful_ it physically hurts to read this thread.


----------



## sovram (Sep 29, 2012)

I think Dr. Stein wants to abolish the Electoral College and establish an actual popular vote that determines the president?


----------



## Tailsy (Sep 29, 2012)

Yes, but she'll never get elected. See: every other post in this thread.


----------



## Eloi (Sep 30, 2012)

I unapologetically support Obama in this election. I absolutely agree with him on his political positions within the context that he is in, and I'm mystified why people would support third party candidates over him, or why people don't like him as much as they did. Am I the only one whose expectations have been exceeded by his actions? He's my favorite president thus far, up there with Jimmy Carter.


----------



## sovram (Sep 30, 2012)

Eloi said:


> I unapologetically support Obama in this election. I absolutely agree with him on his political positions within the context that he is in, and I'm mystified why people would support third party candidates over him, or why people don't like him as much as they did. Am I the only one whose expectations have been exceeded by his actions? He's my favorite president thus far, up there with Jimmy Carter.





Cirrus said:


> Obama might generally be better than Romney, and it would super-cool to keep in a black president for a bit longer, but he still drops bombs on little brown children... some people just genuinely can't vote with that on their conscience, and wow just leave them to it.


----------



## Seven Synergies (Sep 30, 2012)

The sad part is that Romney's politics are irrelevant, seeing as how he's a complete dumbass.  That being said, I'm not a big fan of the Republican view of encouraging large businesses with minimal government, but that's probably just from me being raised in a middle class family.

Furthermore, I'd still vote for Barack, just because a couple of the ideas he proposes in his Obamacare bill seem like they would work pretty well, like forcing insurance companies and hospitals to pick up the expenses for a lot of the more basic treatments.


----------



## surskitty (Sep 30, 2012)

Seven Synergies said:


> The sad part is that Romney's politics are irrelevant, seeing as how he's a complete dumbass.  That being said, I'm not a big fan of the Republican view of encouraging large businesses with minimal government, but that's probably just from me being raised in a middle class family.


Yeah, and the Republican view is just from being filthy rich and trying to become even more rich.  I feel like being against people who would rather shit on the rest of the country and just get even more rich is probably the sensible position to have.





Seven Synergies said:


> Furthermore, I'd still vote for Barack, just because a couple of the ideas he proposes in his Obamacare bill seem like they would work pretty well, like forcing insurance companies and hospitals to pick up the expenses for a lot of the more basic treatments.


 Oi, what's with the first name?  Particularly in parallel to 'Romney'....

Also, you know Obamacare already got passed, right?  It is already in place and has partly taken effect.


----------



## Eloi (Sep 30, 2012)

> Obama might generally be better than Romney, and it would super-cool to keep in a black president for a bit longer, but he still drops bombs on little brown children... some people just genuinely can't vote with that on their conscience, and wow just leave them to it.


You mean continuing the War in Afghanistan instead of just instantly leaving the Northern Alliance by itself? Or are you talking by that incident where a 16-year old, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, was (accidentally) killed by a drone, and other civilian causalities? 

Yes, civilian causalities are obviously tragic. Yes, warfare is something that systematically abridges the absolute value of human life. Yes, all of the war crimes and torture committed by the constituents of ISAF, especially the United States, is horrendous. 

But Obama couldn't have just withdrew. Do you know what that would cause? More lives to be taken in the ensuing conflict between the Northern Alliance and the extremist insurgents, in an even more protracted conflict. Obama didn't start this war. And I don't blame him for not leaving. The United States already made a commitment to overthrow the Taliban, and honestly, due to Operation Cyclone, the United States was what caused them to be in power in the first place. Considering the horrible human rights abuses committed by the Taliban, it would be a grave injustice to allow them to come to power again.

You don't want little brown children to have bombs dropped on them. I don't either. That's why I support a decisive end to the War of the Afghanistan in favor of the party most likely to not abuse the population once in power. 

And that's I vote for Obama with a clear conscious.


----------



## Minish (Sep 30, 2012)

It doesn't matter that you think things like civilian casualties are unpreventable, it _still_ means that some people might not be able to vote for anyone who causes that on a massive scale. Regardless of whether the alternative would do worse, or doing anything else would be apparently worse. The personal distaste for voting for anyone who is a) in the position where those kinds of decisions can be made and b) will do that, can bring someone to be unable to bring themselves to.

I'm mostly talking about people who don't vote at all. Basically, there are good, personal reasons why someone might not want to vote and it's okay.


----------



## Eloi (Sep 30, 2012)

But what of the people harmed by the possible candidate that is elected in place of the one that would've been the most likely to be the least harmful? Non-action is still an action, ethically speaking. And if one comes to power who does more harm than another candidate, the people who didn't vote are still morally culpable.


----------



## Minish (Sep 30, 2012)

Non-action is way, way less of an action. Who's saying that they don't still feel bad about things? Or that they don't do other things to prevent bad stuff from happening? There's no physically doing an action that you have to seriously and suddenly consider right then and there - so it's understandable. Philosophically and shit, yeah, we're ~all culpable and whatever, but I'm talking about real problems that affect you right then and there (such as forcing yourself to vote for someone repulsive to you) and why it makes sense.

No, I really disagree about them still being morally culpable. If it's going to affect their mental health they can do whatever makes them okay.


----------



## Eloi (Oct 1, 2012)

Cirrus said:


> Non-action is way, way less of an action.


Non-action is an action.

If you see a train barreling down a railroad track towards a doggy, and you chose to let it be run over, that was a choice you made, and is just as much of a choice as if you would've tried to call to it or move it out of the way. 



> Who's saying that they don't still feel bad about things? Or that they don't do other things to prevent bad stuff from happening? There's no physically doing an action that you have to seriously and suddenly consider right then and there - so it's understandable. Philosophically and shit, yeah, we're ~all culpable and whatever, but I'm talking about real problems that affect you right then and there (such as forcing yourself to vote for someone repulsive to you) and why it makes sense.


Philosophy is a rational analysis of everything, and can inform our choices. I don't see a difference between what is "philosophical" and what is "real"/"practical". They're one and the same.



> No, I really disagree about them still being morally culpable. If it's going to affect their mental health they can do whatever makes them okay.


But it could affect a lot more people's mental health though. If a significant portion of people sit-out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, then Romney could come into office, and make things worse for QUILTBAG people then they already are, which will definitely negatively affect a lot of people's mental health, to a wider and greater extent than the possible pain caused by voting for someone you don't agree with completely.


----------



## ultraviolet (Oct 1, 2012)

Seven Synergies said:


> Furthermore, I'd still vote for Barack, just because a couple of the ideas he proposes in his *Obamacare*


every time I see 'Obamacare' used in a sentence I automatically think it's like, Fox's word for the evil commie scheme Obama is plotting and death panels and etc. It just sounds like a media buzzword; why is it even called obamacare? o.o it's just public healthcare, isn't it? that thing that most other developed countries have?


----------



## surskitty (Oct 1, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> every time I see 'Obamacare' used in a sentence I automatically think it's like, Fox's word for the evil commie scheme Obama is plotting and death panels and etc. It just sounds like a media buzzword; why is it even called obamacare? o.o it's just public healthcare, isn't it? that thing that most other developed countries have?


it's called obamacare as a fox buzzword yes but it's moved into wider use i think

haha, no, it's not public healthcare; it's requiring everyone to get health insurance, which is something rather different, and it makes it slightly harder for insurance companies to screw people over though the us health industry is still a giant giant mess


this might be just me but if a terrible candidate gets into office, i'd rather blame the people who voted for them rathe than the people who refrained from voting


----------



## Eloi (Oct 1, 2012)

Yeah, the proper term is the Affordable Care Act.


> this might be just me but if a terrible candidate gets into office, i'd rather blame the people who voted for them rathe than the people who refrained from voting


It's both of their faults. And this isn't to establish blame, it's to convince those who do this to chose to make the decision that will benefit the most people.


----------



## Minish (Oct 1, 2012)

Eloi said:


> Non-action is an action.
> 
> If you see a train barreling down a railroad track towards a doggy, and you chose to let it be run over, that was a choice you made, and is just as much of a choice as if you would've tried to call to it or move it out of the way.


That's a really bizarre comparison.

Voting says you like this person: you want them to be in power. You are told you are making them be in power, even if your one vote probably won't make much difference. Some people cannot live with feeling like they *actively* made that happen. Maybe they can live with inactively having something happen. They probably still don't like that, but they can at least process. They can still process and not have that decision looming over them all the time on their conscience! Because that one tiny vote makes way, way more of a difference to the mental health of this individual than it did on how many tens of thousands of votes those big powerful rich people will collect.

If it turns out their single vote caused someone really awful to get in, yeah, I'd be surprised if they didn't feel really bad about that? But they had no way of knowing that at the time. Especially when some states are basically guaranteed winners and you literally aren't doing anything but hurting yourself if you vote for Obama while fervently not wanting to vote at all.



> Philosophy is a rational analysis of everything, and can inform our choices. I don't see a difference between what is "philosophical" and what is "real"/"practical". They're one and the same.


Because sometimes you have to have priorities? When you're really fucking poor for example, you often have to try not to worry about where your clothes came from, or whether the food you can afford came from great production. That's different because I wouldn't call it a philosophical issue, people/the planet/whatever still get hurt when you do those things. But your personal, current reality, and your mental health, when otherwise you're a pretty good person... should probably take precedence over the big picture. I consider this at least a better comparison than dog-on-a-railtrack.



> But it could affect a lot more people's mental health though. If a significant portion of people sit-out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, then Romney could come into office, and make things worse for QUILTBAG people then they already are, which will definitely negatively affect a lot of people's mental health, to a wider and greater extent than the possible pain caused by voting for someone you don't agree with completely.


Yeah, and executing a mass murderer will save more people, or whatever? But some people still can't have execution on their conscience.

I, personally, would vote! But there are a small handful of people shouldn't be judged for abstaining when their one tiny vote is in the long run not going to make a difference at all.

If it were a matter of either choosing Obama or Romney right now, or having a lighter mind, maybe it's a thing that should be definitely taken more seriously! But it's actually not like that.


----------



## Eloi (Oct 1, 2012)

> Yeah, and executing a mass murderer will save more people, or whatever? But some people still can't have execution on their conscience.


No, not really. The value of life is absolute, and the basis for all other value. Executing a mass murderer accomplishes nothing that imprisoning them wouldn't do.

And I see your point; if it causes them a lot of distress, then yes, it's not worth the relatively small impact their individual vote makes.


----------



## Abwayax (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm not registered to vote. I'm not even sure if I should bother. Were I motivated enough to go out and vote, I'd be voting Green. Obama is a warmonger president just like his Republican predecessor. He is protecting Bush's torture buddies but prosecuting the whistleblower John Kiriakou who confirmed the existence of the torture program. His drone strikes go after civilians and rescuers, even children, effectively creating an atmosphere of terror. These are things the Democratic party now _brags about_.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that Obama's administration wants the power to detain people indefinitely and is even fighting in court to claim that power. Or the fact that he has asserted, and used, the power to assassinate American citizens. How about the fact that he approved of an extension to the Patriot Act?

Partisan politics is disgusting. In many cases its not about the policies themselves, it's about the who. If "our guy" does it its not so bad. When Bush started the war he was doing it under false pretenses, the war was being fought over oil, it was a senseless war. When Obama took over Bush's wars all of a sudden now the war is justified and he's _protecting our freedom_. When Bush signed the Patriot Act he was committing gross injustices and eroding civil liberties, but when Obama signed the extension the Patriot Act suddenly wasn't as bad anymore. If it were Bush or McCain or Romney doing any of the things I mentioned above Democrats would be all up in arms protesting it, but since it's their guy doing them, it's not so bad anymore.

You really can't blame me for not wanting 4 more years of war, secrecy, assassination, gradual loss of constitutional rights _protecting our freedoms overseas_. An Orwellian concept from an Orwellian administration.

Romney is far worse than him, of course, but really the thing Obama has over Romney is that Obama is not a bigot. The GOP platform is built on bigotry - the hate of women, the poor, minorities, QUILTBAGs, etc.


----------



## nyuu (Oct 2, 2012)

sovram said:


> I actually think it's been pretty interesting recently, what with the streak of fuck-ups that Romney has been making.
> 
> Right now I'm basically torn between Stein and Obama. I really like Stein but also our political system makes me sad. So I might vote for Obama. Don't know.



a thought: while plurality systems _do_ tend to favor two-party systems, there are exceptions (canada, india, and if I understand correctly, the uk).

it'd take way-more-people not feeling like voting third party equals their voice being wasted, but: it's not hopeless forever.


----------



## Tailsy (Oct 2, 2012)

the UK also has different systems depending on where you're voting and what for! scotland uses a mix of different electoral systems for its own parliament, which (USUALLY) avoids a one-party majority in government. 

not that it matters since it is usually the tories or labour who get most control in the UK parliament anyway so it's basically a two-party system but whatevs.


----------



## Cerberus87 (Oct 3, 2012)

About political systems, we should try to change things. It's wrong that people in the US are forced to choose between right-wing and slightly less right-wing. The anti-system people should try to be more vocal and change the system, if not through negotiations, then by force.

The problem is that corporate media always shows rebellion in a bad light. :(



Cirrus said:


> That's a really bizarre comparison.
> 
> Voting says you like this person: you want them to be in power. You are told you are making them be in power, even if your one vote probably won't make much difference. Some people cannot live with feeling like they *actively* made that happen. Maybe they can live with inactively having something happen. They probably still don't like that, but they can at least process. They can still process and not have that decision looming over them all the time on their conscience! Because that one tiny vote makes way, way more of a difference to the mental health of this individual than it did on how many tens of thousands of votes those big powerful rich people will collect.
> 
> If it turns out their single vote caused someone really awful to get in, yeah, I'd be surprised if they didn't feel really bad about that? But they had no way of knowing that at the time. Especially when some states are basically guaranteed winners and you literally aren't doing anything but hurting yourself if you vote for Obama while fervently not wanting to vote at all.


You'd be surprised to learn in some countries there are crimes that consist in someone not doing an action that the law enforces (like rescuing someone after a car accident you were involved in).

And then there also that Rush song that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".


----------



## ultraviolet (Oct 4, 2012)

Cerberus87 said:


> AYou'd be surprised to learn in some countries there are crimes that consist in someone not doing an action that the law enforces (like rescuing someone after a car accident you were involved in).
> 
> And then there also that Rush song that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".


uh I'm pretty sure that's a law in most countries, actually. 
??? but the point cirrus is making is that one person not voting has a relatively tiny impact on the election in general, while meanwhile the person who didn't want to vote because of personal reasons or whatever doesn't have to feel shitty for ages because they had to vote. deciding not to rescue someone in a car accident has much more responsibility already placed on you, and you are already necessarily involved even if you don't help the person, because you were part of the accident. this is kind of a terrible comparison, sorry. It's the same reason why the 'train hurtling towards of people' doesn't work either; voting or not voting is a cumulative effect. It's not as though you voting or not is going to decide the election, because your vote is one of hundreds of thousands. Really, a more correct analogy would be if like, a million people were in the same car accident, and they *all* had to choose whether to help this one person or not.

Like yeah, non-action is an action, but it's a tiny tiny action the same way voting is a tiny tiny action. Helping someone in a car accident you were involved in has a much greater effect on the situation.

not even going to comment on the song because what even


----------



## Cerberus87 (Oct 4, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> uh I'm pretty sure that's a law in most countries, actually.
> ??? but the point cirrus is making is that one person not voting has a relatively tiny impact on the election in general, while meanwhile the person who didn't want to vote because of personal reasons or whatever doesn't have to feel shitty for ages because they had to vote. deciding not to rescue someone in a car accident has much more responsibility already placed on you, and you are already necessarily involved even if you don't help the person, because you were part of the accident. this is kind of a terrible comparison, sorry. It's the same reason why the 'train hurtling towards of people' doesn't work either; voting or not voting is a cumulative effect. It's not as though you voting or not is going to decide the election, because your vote is one of hundreds of thousands. Really, a more correct analogy would be if like, a million people were in the same car accident, and they *all* had to choose whether to help this one person or not.
> 
> Like yeah, non-action is an action, but it's a tiny tiny action the same way voting is a tiny tiny action. Helping someone in a car accident you were involved in has a much greater effect on the situation.


Now that you explained it better I sort of agree.


----------



## Lorem Ipsum (Oct 6, 2012)

Would probably vote Johnson in a safe seat, ignoring his stupid view on Obamacare, but in the swing states would wholeheartedly support Obama. There is no way I would vote for Romney, the fool.

Of course, I am British, so I don't have the vote over there. I get to choose between Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Joy.


----------



## Datura (Oct 7, 2012)

Lorem Ipsum said:


> Would probably vote Johnson in a safe seat, ignoring his stupid view on Obamacare


. . . and just about everything else?


----------



## Lorem Ipsum (Oct 7, 2012)

Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.


----------



## sovram (Oct 7, 2012)

Lorem Ipsum said:


> Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.


I'm like 90% sure Stein has all that (I don't know about "budget cuts" but probably) plus she's not a white (protestant?) male

eta: just listen to Datura he has said what I could not.


----------



## Datura (Oct 7, 2012)

Lorem Ipsum said:


> Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.


Um, that all sounds nice (though none of these positions are unique to Johnson), but libertarians have _lot_ of awful stances that outweigh everything you mentioned above: near-complete government deregulation, cutting of social safety nets, private school vouchers, abolishment of already-weak gun control policies, a "free market" approach to healthcare (lol) that includes repealing the Affordable Care Act, complete removal of government from energy investment/management, no protection from the predatory for-profit college industry, legalized private discrimination in the name of "civil liberties," anti-choice policies, etc. etc.

But of course the internet loves him, because WEEEEED LOL.

Oh, and he's the godfather of the U.S. for-profit prison system. Fuck that. I would rather have Romney as commander in chief. I'm serious. Libertarians are the _worst_, most delusional people in modern American politics.


----------



## Lorem Ipsum (Oct 8, 2012)

Okay. I will concede. I've just read her platform, and unlike the Greens in this country, she is great, minus the bad bits of Johnson. Obviously a few reservations, but okay.


----------



## sovram (Oct 9, 2012)

Lorem Ipsum said:


> Okay. I will concede. I've just read her platform, and unlike the Greens in this country, she is great, minus the bad bits of Johnson. Obviously a few reservations, but okay.


curious, what are the Greens like over there?


----------



## Lorem Ipsum (Oct 9, 2012)

Now, my perceptions of the US Greens are based off their policy platform in 2010 so I may be wrong here, but whereas they advocate a 0.5% tax on wealth over $5million, the Greens in England and Wales support an increase in the top band of income tax, which I disagree with, as well as turning away from capitalism. It doesn't really have a particularly coherent crime strategy, and wants to nationalise a lot of things, which I disagree with also, and the new leader has come out totally against any cuts to public services and actually wants to increase spending above levels at the moment. Needless to say, I think that's ludicrous.


----------



## Adriane (Oct 10, 2012)

Lorem Ipsum said:


> Now, my perceptions of the US Greens are based off their policy platform in 2010 so I may be wrong here, but whereas they advocate a 0.5% tax on wealth over $5million, the Greens in England and Wales support an increase in the top band of income tax, which I disagree with, as well as turning away from capitalism. It doesn't really have a particularly coherent crime strategy, and wants to nationalise a lot of things, which I disagree with also, and the new leader has come out totally against any cuts to public services and actually wants to increase spending above levels at the moment. Needless to say, I think that's ludicrous.


I currently don't have access to healthcare. I have multiple (untreated) psychosocial disabilities.  I don't have access to public transportation. I'm a barely-employed, full-time student with an expired pittance of a state scholarship. Oh, and my parents still make under six figure annually despite _three_ income flows, and they're better off than probably 90% of the state. 

Capitalism is _so _great, why don't you come join us?


----------



## surskitty (Oct 10, 2012)

I've health insurance from multiple sources and it still leaves me paying at least $1k a month in medical bills on a regular basis.


----------



## Phantom (Oct 13, 2012)

I didn't have health ins as an adult until about a half a year ago. Now I'm on MinnesotaCare, which goes off your wage. It's actually cheaper than the one my work would offer me, which I can't take. This was a last resort, because if I got sick or in an accident while not having ins. I would be so _screwed_. 

It's $3 co pay, then $3 per perscription and refills.


----------



## Light (Oct 23, 2012)

So today I found out I'm a democrat. This is a really good evaluation form -- it includes a number of options for detailed opinions and includes a scale of relative importance for each question. Then it lets you compare your answers side by side with the candidates and shows you their "Passion," meaning how central the issue is to their platform, and "Conviction," which takes into account the candidate's history on the matter. I sided 83% with Obama, and a pitiful 37% with Romney. (no, it's not supposed to add up to 100)


----------



## Minish (Oct 23, 2012)

98% Stein, 1% Romney. Awkward.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Oct 23, 2012)

93% Stein, 90% Obama, 98% Democrat

But I can't vote and even if I did I would vote Obama. Can't let Romney win Virginia.


----------



## sovram (Oct 23, 2012)

I just voted! I was kind of nervous for some reason. but I'm proud. I got a sticker!


----------



## Zero Moment (Oct 23, 2012)

My in-depth results:

Obama- 86% on social, foreign policy, economic, immigration, environmental, and science
Johnson- 80% on domestic, social, healthcare, immigration, and science
Stein- 79% on economic, foreign policy, social, science, and immigration
Anderson- 58% on social
Romney- 18% on nothing
Goode- 7% on nothing

On the parties, I'm 92% Democrat, 65% Green, 55% Libertarian, and 6% Republican.


----------



## Datura (Oct 23, 2012)

Stein - 98%
Anderson - 86%
Obama - 84%
Johnson - 65%
Goode - 1%
Romney - 1% lol


----------



## Adriane (Oct 24, 2012)

I took this awhile back.

Stein - 84%
Anderson - 71%
Johnson - 69%
Obama - 63%
Goode - 12%
Romney - 8%

Results are a little skewed because I answered equal marriage questions with a custom answer.


----------



## Light (Oct 24, 2012)

Some of you guys are really polarized! My detailed score was...

83% Obama
75% Johnson
73% Stein
62% Anderson
37% Romney
11% Goode

86% Democrat
77% Green
44% Republican
20% Libertarian

I can't figure out why I got 75% on Johnson but only 20% Libertarian.


----------



## surskitty (Oct 25, 2012)

http://www.isidewith.com/results/83569265
if you disagree with me re: healthcare, you're wrong :'(

President
84% Jill Stein
76% Rocky Anderson
65% Barack Obama
63% Gary Johnson
7% Mitt Romney
3% Virgil Goode
51% Maryland Voters
51% American Voters

Parties you side with...
87% Green
78% Democrat
39% Libertarian
3% Republican


----------



## Light (Oct 25, 2012)

Oh that's cool, if you click on those links you can compare your own results with that person. Here's my results after playing around a bit more with the issue ranking. My results were (quite a bit) more polarized this time, so that must be it.


----------



## Momo(th) (Oct 25, 2012)

http://www.isidewith.com/results/183356686


----------



## top 10 juiced up coaches (Oct 28, 2012)

a goode choice for president


----------

